February 12, 2006

Get Your War On: Welcome to Hell

Recall these Bush statements at a press conference on March 6, 2003, just before the invasion of Iraq began. Every single one of them about Iraq and the administration's "reluctance" to go to war was a lie:

If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.

...

Nobody likes war. The only thing I can do is assure the loved ones of those who wear our uniform that if we have to go to war, if war is upon us because Saddam Hussein has made that choice, we will have the best equipment available for our troops, the best plan available for victory, and we will respect innocent life in Iraq.

...

I hope we don't have to go to war...

...

[T]here's only one way to disarm him. And that happens to be my last choice -- the use of force.

Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."

The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran's nuclear programme. But the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret nuclear operations and the virulent anti-Israeli threats of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices. They would fly from bases in Missouri with mid-air refuelling.

As in the case of Iraq, the alleged "reasons" for these plans -- the "disclosures" about "secret nuclear operations" and all the rest -- are only the excuses and purported justifications used for a decision that has already been made.

Even if by some miracle such attacks managed to "cripple" Iran's nuclear program (whatever its nature), the consequences would almost certainly be catastrophic: widespread violence, devastating attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, and the obliteration of large parts of the Middle East, including much of Israel. They would unleash Armageddon. But they don't care about any of that. Accurate or not, the intelligence is irrelevant, and they are most definitely not behaving like "rational actors."

It is a decision of policy, and the policy has been set for some time. The steady stream of stories over the last few months, together with the history of the Bush administration, makes that absolutely clear.